Daily Archives: March 4, 2015

Clinton’s Calculated Chicanery

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

That was an appallingly disgraceful dodge of a question made by a top American official under congressional testimony. The inquiry was an attempt at finding some degree of the truth regarding the horrific events that occurred at the American diplomatic compound on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Still shocking years later, this response came from the secretary of state in what appeared to be a reprehensibly rehearsed comeback to deflect any culpability for not fulfilling her duties by not responding to multiple requests for increased security for those now deceased Americans who were stationed in a Middle East post, including Ambassador Stevens.

The people who murdered those Americans have not been brought to justice, unless you count a random guy who made a YouTube video that had nothing to do with the attacks. And Hillary Clinton has yet to take responsibility for failing to provide increased security that was directly requested for in that dangerous location. That was part of her job description and she failed miserably. It can be argued that it was a fatal mistake. Perhaps she was too busy buying a stupid red button from the dollar store that symbolized her delusional vision and inadequate judgement for world diplomacy.

Mr. Putin has clearly taken it seriously as a pivot in his actions.

As the story regarding a clear violation and security risks (and political donations?) linked to her exclusive private email use as secretary of state continue to unfold, Mrs. Clinton certainly had time to email during her 4-year tenure as the leader of American foreign affairs. Why wasn’t an ambassador a top priority emailing partner for her? Will she be held fully accountable by the national media for the recent revelations surrounding donations made by Middle Eastern countries to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state? Will Hillary Clinton accept responsibility for her decisions?

Sadly, the answer is no.

Why? Mostly because of 2016.

First it was 2008 and now it’s 2016. Hillary Clinton and Co. will literally do and say anything to get elected. Any legitimate barrier in their way will be mercilessly bulldozed, regardless if it has validity or reasons for further scrutiny and transparency. In the macro, anyone willing to do and say anything to be president shouldn’t be president. When the rules don’t apply to you and when seemingly every decision you make is wrong (see her time as secretary of state), appears political and is shockingly disingenuous, that’s when it becomes crystal clear that any pursuit at top public leadership positions have little to do with the people you would be serving, but selfishly only with yourself.

It’s the difference between integrity and duplicity.

Hillary Clinton recently said to a crowd, “Don’t you want to see a woman president?”

Yes, but not you.